It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NASA's SP-368 contains 592 pages of tables and summaries. SP-368 really was NOT INTENDED for the consumer market. I believe that the intended market for SP-368 were public libraries and academic institutions.
I don't know why you say consumer market when consumer market means Time Magazine, Life Magazine, Reader's Digest, Popular Mechanics and things like that...
Besides, SP-250 (This Island Earth) and SP-423 (The Atlas of Mercury) both have embossed covers. How does the consumer markets theory apply to embossed covers?
Does your argument mean that NASA added Magic Mountain to the cover of SP-368 to sell more copies?
NASA has literally thousands of lunar photos to choose from in 1975 but they chose AS15-86-11603 and added a fake mountain just for fun?
Why didn't GPO go with the embossed covers which was probably the cheapest option?
I get it now. You want me to believe that the GPO created Magic Mountain. According to you the US Government Printing Office doctored a NASA Apollo photo to include an extra mountain, a MAGIC MOUNTAIN, a mountain that doesn't exist in any original NASA photograph.
there is lots of great information at this site thanks...
Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
I design cover graphics also.
That girl student is obviously NOT on board the ISS. Conclusion, I'm a liar.
Frank Gannon, the former Nixon aide who assisted the president on his memoirs (and thus probably knew Nixon better than almost any still living person) reviews Conrad Black's Nixon in Friday's Opinion Journal:
On Aug. 8, 1974, the night Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Henry Kissinger assured him that history would judge him to be one of America's great presidents. "That depends, Henry," Nixon replied, "on who writes the history." ... Source frum.nationalreview.com...
Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by DJW001
I love Phil Plait. In fact Amazon.com as far as I know never charged me for one of his book purchases. He can put things into layman terms, I'm not impressed, however, with his new TV show, the media demands too much flash and blast for a new program and I'm sure Phil himself is disappointed in the direction his new show is heading. He's better than splash and blast.
Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer: "I guess the most ironic thing of all is that people who say I should be more open-minded are too open-minded, and have closed their mind to the one true thing: reality itself."
Source blogs.discovermagazine.com...
Originally posted by jazzguy
i never believed for a second we put man on the moon. in orbit, sure.
everything from photos to the timeline of photos per minute dont add up, the spec sheet for the lunar lander mysteriously vanashing to the spacesuits to the lighting mistakes. all one big lie
www.aulis.comedit on 18-12-2011 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)
AULIS on Apollo
The prime reason for the Aulis investigation into Apollo is to question the official record of the exploration of the Moon in the late 1960s and early '70s – especially the Apollo lunar landings themselves.
Unlike many other Apollo skeptics, the Aulis authors are NOT claiming that astronauts from Earth have never walked on the Moon.
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Well your theory is as good as my theory: Magic Mountain could be the work of a whistleblower.
Originally posted by Shadowhawk
It seems pretty obvious that they DID NOT add a mountain to the picture. Whoever designed the cover actually deleted most of the black sky, leaving a bit on the left side that was vaguely shaped like a mountain. But, it's still just black sky. They didn't add any terrain detail.
Maybe they just wanted to be able to print the title in black against a white background. Personally, I think it looks crappy that way. They should have left it alone and printed the title in white. If nothing else, it would have prevented this silly discussion thread from ever starting.
An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality.